• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The fine tuning argument

Robin

Penultimate Amazing
Robin
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
14,971
I have always regarded the fine tuning as the most intriguing and hardest to counter argument for the existence of God.

On the other hand I have never found it particularly convincing

One of the problems is that I have never seen it stated as an actual argument - I thought that I would try to put this in an argument form and see if I have got it right:
  1. The universe is contingent upon something - X
  2. X is unique in all existence
  3. X is capabable of producing only one universe
  4. X is capable of producing a universe in a vast number of different ways and might have produced any of these at random
  5. Let i be the number of ways X has of producing a universe and j be the number of ways it has of producing a universe with the right conditions for life, then i > j by several orders of magnitude.
  6. If 1,2,3,4 and 5 are true then the probability of there having been a universe capable of producing life is vanishingly small and therefore it is rational to accept that X has intelligence and intention.
Therefore it is rational to accept that the universe is contingent upon something which has intelligence and intention.​

Do I have it right, or at least is that the ball-park?
 
It looks like it has been framed correctly, but I have never understood the claim that i must be greater than j by several orders of magnitude. We may be aware of what can be considered the right conditions for our type of life, but what makes anyone so sure that what we see on earth is truly the only way life can start?
 
I am not sure why you would need P3 in the way you stated it. How about:
3. X is capabable of producing one or more universes.​

Or better yet, swap "universe" for something else. Contigent worlds, maybe? Contigent state of affairs?
 
Uhm.. if X is only capapble of producing one universe, that throws the "all powerful God" notion out the window.

Fine-tuning is just another restatement of the claim "the universe exists, therefore God must exist." It's not an argument at all.
 
For a start, many of the fine tuning arguments suffer from the logical fallacy of Making Up Bull**** and Pulling It Out Of Your Ass. They almost never cite the source of the claims of "if such-and-such a parameter was more than one billion-trillionth different". And when they do, it's inevitably quote-mined and provided without context.

Secondly, the fine tuning argument states merely that "if things were different, they would be different", which is so pathetic that it can be easily countered by the equally pathetic Anthropic Principle: If the universe were not capable of producing life, life would not have been produced. The universe has to be the way it is, because otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Thirdly, many of these arguments involve tweaking a single parameter at a time while leaving all the others constant and demonstrating that the universe is not stable enough to produce life under those conditions. There are several solutions for stable universes where all or several of the parameters are changed, for example. We might have been living in one of those, if things were actually different.

Yeah. The Fine Tuning argument falls way short of being convincing.
 
The fine tuning argument boils down to "Look how many things had to be just right for us to evolve!"
So what?
We did.
Surprised?
 
For me the fine tuning argument doesn't make sense because except for the surface this little speck of a planet, and the potential for other "earth like" planets, the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile and deadly to us. That's pretty strange for a place that is supposed to be "fine tuned" just for us.

I'd say that if the universe was fine tuned, it's much more tuned for things such stars, black holes, pulsars, etc.
 
Last edited:
Whenever, I read one of these discussions I am always reminded of The Triumph of Time (1959) volume of four of James Blish's Cities in Flight series.

At the end of that book the Universe bounces through a Big Crunch and is directed by the protagonist in its resurrection into a completely different form.


If the Universe were completely different, we would not be here to talk about it but the snorglies might well be there to gramish.
 
Robin said:
I have always regarded the fine tuning as the most intriguing and hardest to counter argument for the existence of God.

On the other hand I have never found it particularly convincing
Click to expand...

Neither have I. Let's look at it, shall we? Your version of it seems to be pretty much accurate.

  1. The universe is contingent upon something - X
Click to expand...


  1. This has yet to be proven. The laws of cause and effect can only be shown to be in influence inside our universe. Outside our universe, something may very well come of nothing for no reason at all.
    And anyway, where did X come from?

    [*] X is unique in all existence
    Click to expand...

    There is no way to prove this. For all we know, there could be hundreds of X's in this not-universe.

    [*] X is capabable of producing only one universe
    Click to expand...

    Well, then he's not omnipotent, is he?

    [*] X is capable of producing a universe in a vast number of different ways and might have produced any of these at random
    Click to expand...

    Bare assertion fallacy. In fact, this entire argument has so far been one giant bare assertion fallacy.

    [*] Let i be the number of ways X has of producing a universe and j be the number of ways it has of producing a universe with the right conditions for life, then i > j by several orders of magnitude.
    Click to expand...

    Again, bare assertion. There might be thousands of other ways to configure a universe to support life.

    [*] If 1,2,3,4 and 5 are true then the probability of there having been a universe capable of producing life is vanishingly small and therefore it is rational to accept that X has intelligence and intention.
    Click to expand...
Therefore it is rational to accept that the universe is contingent upon something which has intelligence and intention.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, so bare assertion again. The odds against it are astronomical indeed, assuming that i is indeed greater than j by the amount stated above (which we don't know for sure). But if it did happen, then X still might not be a conscious, intelligent force. It could have been chance.
And it's a huge, huge, huge bare assertion fallacy to say that 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are true.

Your summary of the argument was pretty accurate. It's just that the argument you were summarizing is completely idiotic.

EDIT: Tried to get the post formatted correctly, but it's not working. Anyone know how to fix this?
 
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth said:
I am not sure why you would need P3 in the way you stated it. How about:
3. X is capabable of producing one or more universes.​
Click to expand...
By definition it is capable of producing at least one universe. But if it is not limited to 1 or at least a small number then there is no fine tuning argument. I am not saying the premise is correct, but it is necessary for the FTA.
Or better yet, swap "universe" for something else. Contigent worlds, maybe? Contigent state of affairs?
Click to expand...
Well, this is another problem, if the universe has a cause then that implies there is or was at least some environment that is not our Universe. So if someone says the Universe was caused and there is no other universe then where is the cause?
 
Pure_Argent said:
Well, then he's not omnipotent, is he?
Click to expand...
That occurred to me too. If someone demonstrates the existence of God based on the premiss that this is the only universe that is, could have been or could be, and then goes on to state that God could have produced as many universes as he wished - suddenly one of the main premisses disappears.

As I said before, if you add this to the KCA you end up with a God that is:

Finite
Static
Only capable of producing one universe
 
Robin said:
That occurred to me too. If someone demonstrates the existence of God based on the premiss that this is the only universe that is, could have been or could be, and then goes on to state that God could have produced as many universes as he wished - suddenly one of the main premisses disappears.

As I said before, if you add this to the KCA you end up with a God that is:

Finite
Static
Only capable of producing one universe
Click to expand...


In either case, what does one call heaven and/or hell? Wouldn't they be alternate universes with different laws of physics?
 
Hokulele said:
In either case, what does one call heaven and/or hell? Wouldn't they be alternate universes with different laws of physics?
Click to expand...

According to the Doctrine, Hell isn't really located in some exotic parallel existence, but rather hell is described as being in ''the center of the earth.''

Heaven though, may have such a description.
 
Singularitarian said:
According to the Doctrine, Hell isn't really located in some exotic parallel existence, but rather hell is described as being in ''the center of the earth.''
Click to expand...


Really? I hadn't heard that claim. Most descriptions of hell simply describe it as being "not in god's presence". Would you please provide a citation for that?
 
Hokulele said:
In either case, what does one call heaven and/or hell? Wouldn't they be alternate universes with different laws of physics?
Click to expand...
That brings me to the other problem with FTA debates, one that I touched on in the other thread - the rule that seems to say:

The atheist must use empirically verifiable evidence
The theist can use pure conjecture.​

So, for example, if you say that the cause could be some thing that operates according to a slightly different laws of physics the theist says "Ah, but there is no empirical evidence for that", without ever offering to provide empirical evidence for the God hypothesis.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Uhm.. if X is only capapble of producing one universe, that throws the "all powerful God" notion out the window.

Fine-tuning is just another restatement of the claim "the universe exists, therefore God must exist." It's not an argument at all.
Click to expand...

The Anthropic Principle, which has four distinctive identities is in fact a fine tuning arguement. Quantum physics has much to say on the subject.
 
Singularitarian said:
According to the Doctrine, Hell isn't really located in some exotic parallel existence, but rather hell is described as being in ''the center of the earth.''

Heaven though, may have such a description.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a cite for this? As far as I know even the Bible describes as Hell existing after the complete destruction of the Earth. Most modern theists (as in since 300 AD) would describe Hell as an alternate reality to physical reality.

As far as I know the "centre of the earth" thing comes from Dante, which is only intended as an allegory in any case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom